no i dont need to provide any quotes (they are there for you to find if you've got the balls to search for truth)....you've been shown your errors by me and others many times before and its not done any good...you are unteachable.

no i dont need to provide any quotes (they are there for you to find if you've got the balls to search for truth)....you've been shown your errors by me and others many times before and its not done any good...you are unteachable.

I think that you have no other reaction but to get nasty. That is a real shame.

seven dimensions of space as it is conditioned by time means just that.

NOT seven dimensions of space, seven different conceptions of space. How can you comment on interpretations of TUB when you cannot even quote it correctly?

Sounds a little arrogant to me "toto" but, it would seem that since it appears, from your perspective, that you wrote TUB, therefore you are the only one who actually knows how to interpret its content, or is it your union with your TA, which you tend to commune with regularly, as you have previously stated.

Here again, the definition of the word "dimension" seems to have only one meaning for you but in many of its usage in the UB it could also represent "unit", where in its number six definition it cross references "dimension" with the following: (unit - 6) "Also called dimension. any specified amount of a quantity, as of length, volume, force, momentum, or time, by comparison with which any other quantity of the same kind is measured or estimated."So, it might also be conceivable that space contains seven distinct components, some seen and some unseen. In that "time" is not a component but a conditioning factor. Therefore, "time", in this context, would not be a dimension, but a factor of motion, as a result.

_________________The Reality of knowing what Wisdom is, is in the Experiencing of the Philosophy of using Knowledge.

toto wrote:Makalu wrote:seven dimensions of space as it is conditioned by time means just that.

NOT seven dimensions of space, seven different conceptions of space. How can you comment on interpretations of TUB when you cannot even quote it correctly?

Sounds a little arrogant to me "toto" but, it would seem that since it appears, from your perspective, that you wrote TUB, therefore you are the only one who actually knows how to interpret its content, or is it your union with your TA, which you tend to commune with regularly, as you have previously stated.

Well Midi, I was attacked first by someone that sounded arrogant to me and I just responded. And why are you now attacking me and pilling on the nasty comments? Am I the only one that cannot have an opinion here?

Are you trying to interfere with the sacred relationship between me and my TA? I would not dream of doing that to you or anyone else.

MidiChlorian wrote:

So, it might also be conceivable that space contains seven distinct components, some seen and some unseen. In that "time" is not a component but a conditioning factor. Therefore, "time", in this context, would not be a dimension, but a factor of motion, as a result.

Maybe, and then, maybe not.

A space can either be bounded or unbounded. A bounded space is a box, for instance. An unbounded space is the absolute cartesian coordinate system as an example. Because TUB states that space moves, it cannot be absolute because an absolute space has nowhere to move to, being already absolute. That is why TUB says that space is sub absolute.

A bounded space ( a box or 3 dimension cube) is not the space depicted in TUB because this spaced cannot move either. It is "boxed in". So, what we are left with is a bounded space that can expand and contract with reflection boundaries at full expansion and full contraction. This would naturally correspond to a 4 dimensional space or hyperspace/hypercube. A tesseract is an easily visualized example of such a dimensional state.

Circular time (spherical shell) can fit inside the expanding and contracting cubes and be concentric with the cubic dimension. In other words, they share the same center as the focus of space. The spherical shells of time expand (dilate) and contract simultaneous with rotating with space (expanding and contracting boxes). They are mutually orthogonal because they are concentric, just like the arrangement of The Holy Trinity.

MidiChlorian wrote:

In that "time" is not a component but a conditioning factor. Therefore, "time", in this context, would not be a dimension, but a factor of motion, as a result.

When TUB says that space and time are inseparable, how can that be possible if they were not dimensionally compatible? And let us not forget the current science does indeed consider time a dimension (Einstein's space-time). However, Einstein's time is one dimensional, linear. So, I cannot see this your way unless you give me something more.

Makalu wrote:

i already said that you wouldnt agree nor understand and you did just that...theres nothing more to be said to you on the subject.

p.s. no its not a shame that i refuse to feed the troll

Sweet, the default setting of insults has been activated. In the sphere of forum discussions, if you cannot compete in the arena of ideas, call them a troll. The last refuge has been arrived at. Trolls are sons of God too.

BTW, is this not off topic? I'm a hungry troll, so maybe it's "Hot Pockets". I like the pepperoni.

When TUB says that space and time are inseparable, how can that be possible if they were not dimensionally compatible? And let us not forget the current science does indeed consider time a dimension (Einstein's space-time). However, Einstein's time is one dimensional, linear. So, I cannot see this your way unless you give me something more.

You don't have to see it my way, just take the beam out of your eye, so that you can see it in other ways, even if you cannot agree.Note: "inseparable" would indicate that they cannot exist, one without the other. You present that (Einstein's space-time), not "Einstein's space" or "Einstein's time" (whereby it is you that indicates it is "one dimensional, linear"), whereby "space-time" or "time-space" are units, one within the other where each unit affects the other, or must exist for the other to also exist. If you are referring to "linear time" as an algorithm, then that takes on different aspects as related to space?

There is no reason to give you anything more, because you only see what you want to see. If anyone else see's more than what you see, refuse to see only your complacency of thought, then progress becomes static. Have you made any progress with your complacent thinking? in that you have expanded your prospective to include more? Have your conclusions developed any dynamic (positive) revelations, other than indicating negative conclusions. If you could prove your conclusions, (and actually do something with them) you would not be here, trying to ask for acceptance?

_________________The Reality of knowing what Wisdom is, is in the Experiencing of the Philosophy of using Knowledge.

You don't have to see it my way, just take the beam out of your eye, so that you can see it in other ways, even if you cannot agree.

Your advice is unsolicited. I don't see it your way and you don't see it my way. Can you live with that, because I can.

MidiChlorian wrote:

Note: "inseparable" would indicate that they cannot exist, one without the other. You present that (Einstein's space-time), not "Einstein's space" or "Einstein's time" (whereby it is you that indicates it is "one dimensional, linear"), whereby "space-time" or "time-space" are units, one within the other where each unit affects the other, or must exist for the other to also exist.

It's back to Wiki for you. Einstain's space-time is 4-dimensional, 3 of space and 1 of time. The time dimension is perpendicular to space and had to be placed in the complex plane. When TUB says that time and space are inseparable I take it to mean that they are related in their functioning. That relationship is perpendicular (orthogonal). Einstein and Minkowski had that one correct, they just did not count on space to be in motion or time to be circular simultaneity.

MidiChlorian wrote:

There is no reason to give you anything more, because you only see what you want to see.

Is this not true of all of us? Are you the holy exception Midi? What is it that you want to see?

MidiChlorian wrote:

If anyone else see's more than what you see, refuse to see only your complacency of thought, then progress becomes static.

Thank you for your concern but it hardly sounds sincere. How does progress become static? That is an oxymoron. Do you mean that progress ceases and a static state ensues? The state of becoming is not the same as the ceasing to be.

MidiChlorian wrote:

Have you made any progress with your complacent thinking? in that you have expanded your prospective to include more? Have your conclusions developed any dynamic (positive) revelations, other than indicating negative conclusions.

Well, I don't know myself as well as you have judged me. I guess I will have to await your judgement and plead mercy.

MidiChlorian wrote:

If you could prove your conclusions, (and actually do something with them) you would not be here, trying to ask for acceptance?

You have misjudged me Midi. I am not trying to prove anything to you or anyone else. I do not require your acceptance or that of anyone else. As I have said many time before to you, take or leave it. I don't really care either way. I only persist because their may be others observing that may benefit.

I do not ask for you to prove yourself to me or show me what you are doing with what has been given to you. That is between you and God.

A space can either be bounded or unbounded. A bounded space is a box, for instance. An unbounded space is the absolute cartesian coordinate system as an example. Because TUB states that space moves, it cannot be absolute because an absolute space has nowhere to move to, being already absolute. That is why TUB says that space is sub absolute.

A bounded space ( a box or 3 dimension cube) is not the space depicted in TUB because this spaced cannot move either. It is "boxed in". So, what we are left with is a bounded space that can expand and contract with reflection boundaries at full expansion and full contraction. This would naturally correspond to a 4 dimensional space or hyperspace/hypercube. A tesseract is an easily visualized example of such a dimensional state.

How can you base your presumptions on the word "bound" to the specificity of one meaning only, not to mention the meaning of "bounded" and "unbounded" in relation to "A space" as being an absolute meaning to "space" as can be relative to "cosmic space" or for that mater, time-space, or space-time? "A space" can be in reference to many things like "vacuum" or "casimir effect" but you insist that it is in reference to a "box" or "cube", why not a "tetrahedron"? Is it not the simplest geometric form that can, as you put it be "a bounded space" with the least amount of sides, so to speak, like a box? Yet you state that "a bounded space that can expand and contract" can have "full expansion and full contraction", but what is "full contraction" in that based on this wording, it would indicate the contraction would not hold a form or a dimension, because it would contract into a non-dimensional point.I'm not sure how all this can make sense if the definitions of words like "bound" and their derivatives were intended to be used differently than you assume they have been used in. Therefore, it can only be absolute, based on your definition, and in order to make sense, you will need to actual define every word that you use, so that everyone can understand how you have defined your interpretations within the UB.

You need to show additional work so we can see like you do, not the other way around. Or, so I think?

_________________The Reality of knowing what Wisdom is, is in the Experiencing of the Philosophy of using Knowledge.

it doesnt matter if you present your illogical inferences in the form of a question or a statement...they're still illogical. i was working logic puzzles in my dads college textbook when i was in grade school...and used the same textbook myself when i aced the college course decades later.

why don't you take the good advise you were given and go create a fringe website to spew your nonsense? oh yeah i forgot because you're a forum troll.

How can you base your presumptions on the word "bound" to the specificity of one meaning only, not to mention the meaning of "bounded" and "unbounded" in relation to "A space" as being an absolute meaning to "space" as can be relative to "cosmic space" or for that mater, time-space, or space-time?

I presume nothing here. The Universe has defined boundaries as TUB tell us. It may be ever expanding but space is not boundless. These are not my ideas, I get them from TUB. Quote me an opposite statement of fact from TUB and I will respond.

MidiChlorian wrote:

"A space" can be in reference to many things like "vacuum" or "casimir effect" but you insist that it is in reference to a "box" or "cube", why not a "tetrahedron"?

Space is not empty, it is not a void or vacuum. Space is real (TUB). Of the five Platonic Solids, the cube is primal. All other solids are truncations of the "cube".

MidiChlorian wrote:

Is it not the simplest geometric form that can, as you put it be "a bounded space" with the least amount of sides, so to speak, like a box?

No, the tetrahedron is not the simplest Platonic Solid. It has 8 sides, the cube has 6 sides.

MidiChlorian wrote:

Yet you state that "a bounded space that can expand and contract" can have "full expansion and full contraction", but what is "full contraction" in that based on this wording, it would indicate the contraction would not hold a form or a dimension, because it would contract into a non-dimensional point.

Full contraction does not contract into a non-dimensional point (zero). If you could consider hyperbolic space in an analogous 2 dimensional hyperbola, you would clearly see that the hyperbola y=1/x reflect at UNITY, not zero. At unity (one) there is a reflective bounce or explosion back to expansion. Such is our cyclic universe.

MidiChlorian wrote:

I'm not sure how all this can make sense if the definitions of words like "bound" and their derivatives were intended to be used differently than you assume they have been used in. Therefore, it can only be absolute, based on your definition, and in order to make sense, you will need to actual define every word that you use, so that everyone can understand how you have defined your interpretations within the UB.

"Bound" means that there are limits. You push for the complex when the simple will suffice. I have more confidence in people's intelligence and their common sense than you, perhaps. It would be ridiculous to define every word I use. I am not shooting for everyone to understand, only those that have understanding will be given more. Those that have not, what little they have will be taken away.

MidiChlorian wrote:

You need to show additional work so we can see like you do, not the other way around. Or, so I think?

I cannot presume to give anyone understanding. TUB clearly states that that which is within us is our source. I cannot show you, but He can!